FREEBMD-SYNDICATES-L Archives

Archiver > FREEBMD-SYNDICATES > 2004-07 > 1089912750


From: "Allan Raymond" <>
Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:32:30 +0100


Good, I can now get on with writing up the contents of the instructions!

Hindsight is a marvellous thing.

Allan Raymond

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Gaunt <>
To: <>
Date: 15 July 2004 18:23
Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans


>> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all.
>
>Well, Allan's original email asked for comments on the wording of the
>instruction to be entered in the knowledge base, not the content.
> Whilst Allan's concern was the +PAGE consideration, the problem lay with
>the actual content as both the instruction to treat the image as one file
>and the file name format displayed were contrary to how I do things.
> Some transcribers may have believed from the content of Allan's proposed
>instruction meant that they were giving their transcribers the wrong
>instructions, as all Allan asked coordinators to comment on, was the
>wording, not the instruction.
> It would, perhaps, have been better if Allan had sought information about
>how these files are approached by syndicates before making any attempt to
>word an instruction, though he can't be blamed for not realising that some
>syndicates treat the images as two files as I myself had no idea that some
>coordinators treat the image as one file! Please note that I didn't decide
>myself to enter the image as two files (despite the obvious logic in doing
>so) but sought advice from higher up prior to allocating scans.
>Anyway, if either way is acceptable, as long as that is made clear then
>there is no problem,
>Steve Gaunt
>Croscan
> ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dave Mayall" <>
>To: <>
>Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:29 AM
>Subject: Re: +PAGE's for double page scans
>
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:07:25 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>> >Alan,
>> >Why are we making this so difficult? This syndicate has all double page
>> >scans transcribed as two single pages, almost a complete quarter,
>following
>> >the practice in the John Slann syndicate. It means all pages can be
>checked
>> >as having been completed, and if a transcriber only does one, it
happens,
>we
>> >are immediately aware of it. Does this mean that we will all have to
>conform
>> >to these unwieldy files.
>>
>> No, and we aren't trying to make it difficult at all.
>>
>> Your syndicate splits the files into single pages. Other syndicates,
>> because of the way they allocate work to transcribers need them to be
>> transcribed as two pages to a file.
>>
>> Each syndicate should proceed in the way that suits it best. We aren't
>> going to make you combine files, neither are we going to make other
>> syndicates split their files.
>>
>> --
>> Dave Mayall
>>
>>
>> ==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ====
>> Want to help FreeBMD?
>> Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how.
>>
>> ==============================
>> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
>> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
>> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>>
>>
>
>
>==== FREEBMD-SYNDICATES Mailing List ====
>Want to help FreeBMD?
>Go to http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/Signup.html to find out how.
>
>==============================
>You can manage your RootsWeb-Review subscription from
>http://newsletters.rootsweb.com/
>
>


This thread: